How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

[awepittance]

it does not matter. I will not surrender to their rule or scare tactics. Nor will I tolerate the idea that dissent against a religion makes you an Islamophobe.

 

this quote shows me for maybe the 5th time that you've completely missed the point of the article i posted. It's not that dissenting against 'a religion' makes you an islamaphobe, its the overwhelming intense focus vs other more pressing global issues (especially humanitarian ones) on it that makes one an islamaphobe.

Very intelligent people who chose to call Islam the 'great threat' we face are in my mind completely lost and lacking overall context about the world stage. I don't know if you agree with the absurd idea that it is the greatest threat, but the people Greenwald pointed to in his article all tout this position and repeatedly. It has and always will be a corner stone of Sam Harris and Hitchens belief systems, because unlike many of their other beliefs it is blatantly rooted in reptile brain emotion, and at least for me totally overshadows whatever other 'intelligent' points they want to make.

To claim moral superiority by complete pacifism against an enemy that has openly declared war on the West/Israel and wishes to gain supreme power by blowing themselves up is certainly something one should be a little wary of by nature.

 

 

honestly Compason with quotes like these i don't know even know where to start with you. You have shifted increasingly to the generic right wing of the spectrum over the past couple years and I must admit it's a little shocking, especially because you appear a lot of the time to have a critical mind. I apologize for not addressing everything you say point by point, but sometimes its just not worth the energy to do it, especially when i read the above.

[syd syside]

 

it does not matter. I will not surrender to their rule or scare tactics. Nor will I tolerate the idea that dissent against a religion makes you an Islamophobe.

 

this quote shows me for maybe the 5th time that you've completely missed the point of the article i posted. It's not that dissenting against 'a religion' makes you an islamaphobe, its the overwhelming intense focus vs other more pressing global issues (especially humanitarian ones) on it that makes one an islamaphobe.

 

Interesting. So because 'New Atheists' focus on Religion and Islam primarily, that is for one not humanitarian and also seeded in racism?

 

Can't you just tackle the points being made against Islam if this issue really has no moral justification for discussion?

 

Basically you must contend that Islam is a morally pure and good force. Has no facets to it which deserve criticism as nothing "intense" is done or could be done in it's name...

 

Once you make this kind of argument then maybe I will re-consider my stance.

[Guest Aserinsky]

compson, are you more afraid of islamic terrorists or the daleks?

 

LOL

[syd syside]

 

it does not matter. I will not surrender to their rule or scare tactics. Nor will I tolerate the idea that dissent against a religion makes you an Islamophobe.

 

this quote shows me for maybe the 5th time that you've completely missed the point of the article i posted. It's not that dissenting against 'a religion' makes you an islamaphobe, its the overwhelming intense focus vs other more pressing global issues (especially humanitarian ones) on it that makes one an islamaphobe.

Very intelligent people who chose to call Islam the 'great threat' we face are in my mind completely lost and lacking overall context about the world stage. I don't know if you agree with the absurd idea that it is the greatest threat, but the people Greenwald pointed to in his article all tout this position and repeatedly. It has and always will be a corner stone of Sam Harris and Hitchens belief systems, because unlike many of their other beliefs it is blatantly rooted in reptile brain emotion, and at least for me totally overshadows whatever other 'intelligent' points they want to make.

>>>To claim moral superiority by complete pacifism against an enemy that has openly declared war on the West/Israel and wishes to gain supreme power by blowing themselves up is certainly something one should be a little wary of by nature.

 

 

honestly Compason with quotes like these i don't know even know where to start with you. You have shifted increasingly to the generic right wing of the spectrum over the past couple years and I must admit it's a little shocking, especially because you appear a lot of the time to have a critical mind. I apologize for not addressing everything you say point by point, but sometimes its just not worth the energy to do it, especially when i read the above.

 

 

How is that quote ring wing? Most everyone agrees we should have gone after Osama after 9/11. That some enemies are dangerous and can inflict mass death. To deny this and suggest that it is right wing rhetoric is absurd, is it not?

 

There should be absolutely nothing shocking about that quote imo. It's to say we should have cops to protect people from serial killers.

 

Terrorists should be fought like they are international crime gangs. Duh.

 

Just because I take this stance, does not mean I support the way in which our Government deals with in every instance.

 

As I have said, 3 times now... I think they have done a terrible job on the whole, but I also don't know what the best solution is. I'd probably have to see the intelligence to seriously gauge the threat myself. And the specific context of each problem / conflict. It's simply too far away from my grasps to know one way or the other.

 

For one, as the Hitchen's video points out (last page), we should end our war on drugs and buy poppies from the Afghanistan people instead of giving that money to the Taliban or burning down their crops.

[syd syside]

Gonna make one more kind of concluding remark and say its kind of amazing that someone who criticizes a religion (even intensely) that justifies abuses towards women, martyrdom, indoctrination, murder of apostates, punishment of openly homosexuals, etc is actually a problem for some of you.

[Guest Adjective]

you're a troll

[Guest zaphod]

compson, what do you think "islam" is? reading through your posts it really seems as though you have no idea what you're talking about.

[syd syside]

you're a troll

 

I would have thought that my point about Islam delaying the printing press for almost 300 years compared to the West (religion corruption outlawing it), was enough to convey the unique regression it has caused in that region. Or the polling data that clearly shows how Islamic belief has justified morals that aren't compatible with ours in some countries. Or the fact that people fear expressing dissent if they are born into Islamic states. Stunting critical thinking of the mind.

 

These issues deal with human rights. Violations against the individual.

 

That is the point of this discussion. We disagree, so we bring forth what we think and learn from other people's perspectives/understanding.

[syd syside]

compson, what do you think "islam" is? reading through your posts it really seems as though you have no idea what you're talking about.

What do you think Islam is?

 

What aspects of my arguments makes no sense?

 

Need more specifics.

[Guest zaphod]

you aren't making an argument. you're parroting rhetoric.

[syd syside]

you aren't making an argument. you're parroting rhetoric.

 

I'm presenting an argument that Islamic fascism is dangerous...

 

Greenwald completely misses this (others in thread have argued this as well)

[Guest Franklin]

sam harris is by far the worst of those three. it seems like he is a professional smarmy atheist. he has the label "neuroscientist" but dicking around with fMRIs so you can get evidence to "prove" your already established notions is hardly science. tbh i haven't read any of his publications, just looked at his wikipedia. it kinda upsets me that he gives himself credit as a neuroscientist when he barely publishes anything (he's published four neuro papers in the last five years).

 

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/publications-and-lectures/

 

he is first and foremost a writer, it seems to me.

 

and anyway, the article in the op left a really bad taste in my mouth about this dude. what a twat. dawkins is a brilliant biologist, dennett is a brilliant philosopher and hitchen was a great writer. all of them hold views i disagree with in some regard, but i respect them. sam harris tho... blergh.

 

 

well hoodie most people (whether they like him or not) would probably say that he's a thinker first and foremost actually... "writer" just kind of implies that one makes stuff up without necessarily being an expert in the field. I think putting "neuroscientist" is more a matter of respect than in trying to embellish or get away from just calling himself a 'writer". I mean if he had a masters in culinary arts it wouldnt be mentioned except maybe to mock...

also, publishing 4 papers in neuroscience in the last 5 years is pretty good for a guy who is involved in as many things as he is.

 

also also, you're going to need to actually read his stuff before you comment on whether you like him or agree with him lol.

[syd syside]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXX5Q9JPWt8

 

 

 

Al-Hasan al-Basri (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: this aayah was revealed concerning singing and musical instruments (lit. woodwind instruments). (Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/451).

 

Al-Qaasim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Singing is part of falsehood. Al-Hasan (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: if there is music involved in a dinner invitation (waleemah), do not accept the invitation (al-Jaami by al-Qayrawaani, p. 262-263).

 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The view of the four Imaams is that all kinds of musical instruments are haraam. It was reported in Saheeh al-Bukhaari and elsewhere that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that there would be among his ummah those who would allow zinaa, silk, alcohol and musical instruments, and he said that they would be transformed into monkeys and pigs… None of the followers of the imaams mentioned any dispute concerning the matter of music. (al-Majmoo’, 11/576).

 

Al-Albaani (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The four madhhabs are agreed that all musical instruments are haraam. (al-Saheehah, 1/145).

 

alot more anti-music quotes here: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/5000

 

 

 

explicitly discouraging musical creativity? or music in general? Of course this might be the minority, but regardless it is still to be criticized as its written in the Koran and being echoed by Muslims today.

 

Islam least IDM 2013

[Guest zaphod]

[syd syside]

flol

[SR4]

this thread generally just fills me with a lot of sadness and disappointment.

[Guest zaphod]

feel like you say that in nearly every thread, but i totally agree. i like the original article that was posted and generally agree with it, but this thread is a clusterfuck.

[syd syside]

Maybe this will cheer you up?

 

 

This probably won't though lol..

 

 

and something to think about everyone maybe...

 

MUTZ PARADOX

 

Diana Mutz's book charts a new course and introduces what might become known as Mutz's paradox. As the title suggests, two major variants of democratic theory are at odds. Mutz argues it is not possible to promote political participation and lively exchanges with "cross-cutting" discussants who hold dissimilar views. In other words, even though citizens tend to be more tolerant and aware of reasons for dissent when they hear from others who disagree, few people actually encounter opposing positions and those who do become less likely to act politically. This is a nuanced but stunning message that is delivered in a persuasive manner.

 

Mutz begins by reminding readers of the alleged benefits of diversity found in the works of political philosophers like John Stuart Mill, but she is quick to reconcile those visions with reality. Drawing upon the literature as well as her own experiences, Mutz argues that committed political activists often have the sort of homogenous social networks that undermine what deliberative theorists routinely advocate.

 

The second chapter expands on visions of democracy as well as the prevalence of cross-cutting influence. Regrettably, cross-cutting communication is not widespread. According to her analyses using several social network surveys fielded between 1992 and 2000, only a slim minority, perhaps as few as one in four, have regular contact with people who hold opposing viewpoints. Chapter 2 goes on to offer descriptive statistics on cross-cutting exposure as well as some unexpected patterns. For example, there is more disagreement in the social networks of non-white, low income, and low education respondents as well as those with low levels of political knowledge. In addition, moderates and independents have the most cross-cutting discussion, not partisans or ideologues. Mutz makes a strong case that cross-cutting discourse is not a variant of participation, it is not a proxy for social capital, and it does not conform to the typical patterns of socioeconomic status in political behavior.

 

At this point some readers might be wondering how so many scholars could have missed such a unique but potent form of political activity, but crossnational data on variations in discussion patterns provides important clues. As it turns out, the United States ranks above the median in frequency of political discussion, ahead of countries like Britain, Singapore, and Canada but behind nations like Israel, Norway, Sweden, Greece, Poland, and the Netherlands. Even though Americans are relatively talkative, the United States ranks highest in the extent to which discussants hold political views that are similar. Forget claims about red states versus blue states. Americans lack confrontation in their social networks.

 

So where does this leave us? Some political theorists might not put discussion in the same category as deliberation, yet deliberative exchanges occur at many levels. Moreover, Mutz makes a strong case that it is not just discussion that matters, but exposure to opposing viewpoints. Herein lies a ray of hope. Even individuals with homogeneous discussion networks could be exposed to countervailing messages. In particular, some high profile policy or political debates in the mass media might supply cross-cutting viewpoints. Mutz anticipates this criticism and argues that the proliferation of media sources generates homogeneity via self-selection, but the issue is not resolved. If deliberation takes place in the mass media and citizens follow the debate, then it could offer a way out of the conundrum.

 

There is no mystery, however, about the importance of this short book that packs a lot of punch. As the 2007 winner of the prestigious Goldsmith Book Prize from Harvard's Shorenstein Center, Mutz's work has already achieved some of the acclaim that it deserves. Scholars who have come into contact with this book are already rethinking their work. Anyone who has not yet read it should do so. Mutz has ignited a fierce academic debate that will not be resolved anytime soon.

 

http://www.politicalreviewnet.com/polrev/reviews/JOPO/R_0022_3816_619_1007672.asp

 

This bonus video has some cool afx sounds:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpubL48Njpc

[Guest zaphod]

check out this article

[goDel]

In compsons defense, a large comfirmation bias is not restricted to one or a small amount of people. Here, or anywhere else.

 

But to get the discussion back to some sort of content, here's a bit of Ayaan Hirsi Ali talking about Islam and Islamophobia:

[syd syside]

check out this article

 

Please counter the claim that Islamic fascism (ie forced indoctrination and punishment of dissent/apposates) is dangerous.

 

I'm really interested in reading a counter point to this specific criticism, which is what the OP thread title suggests by equating anti-islamic criticisms as support for Israel / US foreign policy. Or that it is US Propaganda.

 

I know I've been very pro-Israel in the past and I have been very active in most Islamic related threads. But this doesn't necessarily negate my objectivity on this stance. And I'll push that stance further for the sake of argument when I see confirmation bias or belief rooted in conspiracy. Primarily that of, the Jews started the violence and occupation in Israel. 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government.

 

I think these two things are at the heart of this issue of martydom and Islamic fascism. And it is amazing to see people only criticize the United States aggression, while ignoring/labeling criticism of similar acts of aggression by Islamic fascists.

 

Also ignoring the unique threat that a terrorist organization might have with nuclear access to Iran or Pakistan.

 

If you want to hear about a conspiracy theory I don't hear about as often as say "Loose Change", sit back and enjoy the tin foil:

 

So if the illuminati are legit and we are dealing with a massive plot to start a new world order, what better way than to pit the West against each other with equating christian hatred of islamic fascism as islamophobia, therefore censoring freedom of speech towards religion and allowing the continued boiling of "arab spring" islamic radicalism boil over into Pakistan and initiate a dooms day situation.

 

Nuclear winter in Los Angeles and sheer panic, followed by resentment and hatred towards Liberals who kept denying 9/11 story, denying Islamic fascism on the rise, etc. etc.. civil war? more nuclear winter? I don't really know. It sounds impossible and if they were gonna do it, probably a robot race. But perhaps like 9/11, purposeful incompetency leads to no strings attached as opposed to clear as day government tyranny. Size down the population chunk, become immortal machine and fly off to new planets.

 

lol

 

 

So maybe instead of letting our Government handle these Middle East relations. We should be more honest about what potential threat we do face, that it exists, and that religious fascism is not good as it keeps people forced within a doctrine and keeps women oppressed with is the main cause of poverty.

[syd syside]

terrible typing right now... edit of last sentence: " and keeps women oppressed which is one of the main causes of poverty."

[MisterE]

i can't care about phoney outrage over islamophobia when i see the same people crying about it openly bashing on other religions (namely christianity). i think another label is more appropriate here- hypocrite.

 

and for you ppl always crying about this stuff with the middle east always being because of oil, it was Hillary who first started talking about oil after Obama 100% illegally helped dethrone Gaddafi (at least Bush ran the whole Iraq thing past congress). and how many of you will be voting for her come 2016? can you try, just a little bit, to be even slightly consistent in your phoney moral outrages? the word 'islamophobia' has become propaganda itself.

[Guest Adjective]

lol

[syd syside]

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeDzyikCXL8